CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[Crazy Ivan]

Originally Posted by AdrianXSands

very nice. could this city be taking baby steps in the right direction?

There's something about it I don't like. It reminds me of those Remora fish that attach themselves to the underbellies of sharks.

[ChitownBill]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

You don't have retail because of your NIMBY group, you dumb shit. Your neighborhood will never evolve to its fully potential. You do not have the density needed for a thriving retial scene.

Your group's idoitic height limitation forces developers to max out as of right zoning on high priced real estate, which means ground floor parking to keep the costs down. The end result is blank walls facing sidewalks and only a scattered selection of retial locations. You cannot have a successful pedestrain oriented retail strip with huge gaps of blank walls facing the street.

The height cap also then causes higher prices for the condos in smaller buildings with no views and no ammenities. Which in turn take longer to sell and cause new developments (which would add vibrancy) to lag in sales.

You idoits ruined your own neighborhood.

If NIMBYS had their way the Chicago skyline would look like DesMoines. Thank God it's not and we have a world class skyline...10 stories or less....take it to the suburbs.

[Bucky]

I have no objection to the idea of an additional building on Sears Plaza. The sterile and inaccessable plaza certainly needs reworking. However, as this is a project to increase the rentability and enhance the value of Sears Tower, I see no justification for ny City subsidy. If it makes economic sense, the owners should finance it themselves. All office buildings require updating eventually.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Alliance

side note: NCS is reporting that The Peshtigo will begin construction in Q1 08. They're also going for LEED. Full article here.

^ Wow, that's ambitious but it would be incredible to see.

I hate Peshtigo's base, but then again butt-ugly podiums are just a fact of life so what can I say?

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

You don't have retail because of your NIMBY group, you dumb shit. Your neighborhood will never evolve to its fully potential. You do not have the density needed for a thriving retial scene.

Your group's idoitic height limitation forces developers to max out as of right zoning on high priced real estate, which means ground floor parking to keep the costs down. The end result is blank walls facing sidewalks and only a scattered selection of retial locations. You cannot have a successful pedestrain oriented retail strip with huge gaps of blank walls facing the street.

The height cap also then causes higher prices for the condos in smaller buildings with no views and no ammenities. Which in turn take longer to sell and cause new developments (which would add vibrancy) to lag in sales.

You idoits ruined your own neighborhood.

^ Shawn, the west loop is still totally loaded with vacant lots (I just did a virtual drive through it yesterday ). We need to fill those in first before asking for taller buildings. I think its retail scene lags because there are too many openings in the streetscape, and it hasn't come anywhere to reaching its potential density at its current height limit, let alone at a higher one. And regarding your argument about blank walls, River North is a great example of a neighborhood that has plenty of height but still presents blank parking podiums to the street.

I agree with you in principle, but I often wonder if the 10 story height limitation is really the West Loop's greatest problem. Eric Sedler is certainly a self-important windbag like many NIMBY leaders, but it's important to recognize the limitations of a "height solveth all" mentality that seems to prevail around here.

OMG I just sounded like a NIMBY. Shame on me!!

[Tom In Chicago]

Chicago Shawn is exactly right. . . the NIMBYS from the South Loop, West Loop and East Loop neighborhoods are selfish, elitist and in the end, totally stupid. . . they dig their own holes. . .

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Shawn, the west loop is still totally loaded with vacant lots (I just did a virtual drive through it yesterday ). We need to fill those in first before asking for taller buildings. I think its retail scene lags because there are too many openings in the streetscape, and it hasn't come anywhere to reaching its potential density at its current height limit, let alone at a higher one. And regarding your argument about blank walls, River North is a great example of a neighborhood that has plenty of height but still presents blank parking podiums to the street.

I agree with you in principle, but I often wonder if the 10 story height limitation is really the West Loop's greatest problem. Eric Sedler is certainly a self-important windbag like many NIMBY leaders, but it's important to recognize the limitations of a "height solveth all" mentality that seems to prevail around here.

OMG I just sounded like a NIMBY. Shame on me!!

However, Rivernorth's parking is above street level not at street level as is the case with many new buildings in WLG. River North still has retail at ground level below the parking poduims, so the street view is not blank. Take a look at the 100 Block of S. Morgan, it looks like an alley.

West Loop Gate is isolated by two expressways and a rail viaduct. It therefore needs more density within itself to allow retail to thrive as it is not yet a destination point aside from Greek Town. There are no other attractions which draw folks from outside the nieghborhood to it, espically when one has to walk over the expressway. Further more, yes devlopment sites still exist, but when they fill in with more garbage it will do little help the asthetics of the area, and our office market will not be able to grow beyond the Kennedy. The new low-rise buildings will breed more NIMBYism and the scale of this area will stay consistant for a long time regardless of market conditions. That is a waste of space, espically one served by 3 rapid transit lines and walking distance to the second largest business district in the nation. I used to live there, and still go to school there, and it is a major blown opportunity.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Your group's idiotic height limitation forces developers to max out as-of-right zoning on high priced real estate, which means ground floor parking to keep the costs down. The end result is blank walls facing sidewalks and only a scattered selection of retail locations. You cannot have a successful pedestrian oriented retail strip with huge gaps of blank walls facing the street.

The height cap also then causes higher prices for the condos in smaller buildings with no views and no amenities. Which in turn take longer to sell and cause new developments (which would add vibrancy) to lag in sales.

Huh?

This thinking makes absolutely no sense. First of all, tall buildings are expensive. Building shorter would increase the developers' discretionary funds to attempt things like underground parking, or a parking podium that's one story taller to allow ground-floor retail.

Since the developers' costs have lowered, they then pass along the savings to the buyer. Why on earth would unit prices go UP?

I disagree with WLCO's automatic reaction to height, though. WLCO needs to work closely with developers and push first for buildings that fill the lot, include retail, and meet the developer's desired number of units. Most of the time, that will result in a building that meets their height limitation anyway. If it's a bit over, they need to start being flexible. Last time I checked, there weren't too many developers pushing for really tall buildings in the West Loop. Skybridge is a notable one; there's also a 20-story proposal along Van Buren.

I dunno; I guess it's just my preference for buildings that fill their lots, like the ones in the Loop, or in New York. Thin buildings sitting on wide podiums seem ugly to me. Also, we have neighborhoods (South Loop, Streeterville, River North) which are still woefully incomplete in their high-rise development. I'd much rather have a complete mid-rise environment in West Loop and a complete high-rise environment in South Loop.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Huh?

This thinking makes absolutely no sense. First of all, tall buildings are expensive. Building shorter would increase the developers' discretionary funds to attempt things like underground parking, or a parking podium that's one story taller to allow ground-floor retail.

Since the developers' costs have lowered, they then pass along the savings to the buyer. Why on earth would unit prices go UP?

That's incorrect, only the total cost is lower, the marginal cost is actually much higher for smaller buildings. That's due to a thing called Economies of Scale which says that a producer can achieve a lower unit price when he is producing at progressively larger quantity. In other words, when you create things in bulk, the price of each unit is lower, think Costco or Sam's Club, you have to buy three gallons of Ketchup, but the price of each serving of Ketchup is much lower. That's a pretty basic economic principle.

Besides, its not the height of a building that makes it more expensive, its how wide it is. Tall average width buildings aren't all that more expensive than short average width buildings. Its when you make your building skinnier (think Trump, Waterview, Chicago Spire) that it gets more expensive. That's also why generally only luxury towers are built tall and skinny, because only their expensive unit prices can support tall and skinny.

[Chicago2020]

So whats going with this project????

[honte]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Its an uphill climb arguing against this tower. All I see is some of you acting like NIMBY's. Only instead of acting like you're loosing 15% of your view from your backyard, you're loosing a view of 15% of your tower. Who cares? Don't you LIVE in a city? In a city, aren't there buildings next to other buildings? Are you afraid that the new building might cast shadows on Sears? These arguments are weak.

I am sorry, but it's highly inappropriate to call someone a NIMBY simply because they don't like something. I consider it a real insult. As far as I know, the Sears Tower is in no one's backyard, so there are no NIMBYs. There is a huge difference between people going out of their way to voice educated points of view on a subject that will affect the whole city, versus someone who is whining because they don't want to lose some personal convenience.

People on this board are voicing an opinion of what they believe is best for the city - architecture, urban design, history, scale, sense of place, whatever. I have to tell you, these are perfectly legitimate opinions, even if they don't happen to agree with your personal agenda. Let's have a little respect for people - we all might learn something.

Also, not to be a jerk, but your argument is weaker yet. You are essentially arguing that anyone can have carte blanche right to do whatever they feel like in the city, so long as there will be an increase in density and streetlife. Are these the values that drive all positive change in an urban environment - so much, that they should go unchecked. It should be perfectly obvious that this is an unacceptable situation.

At this point, someone will surely point out astutely that the owners of the Sears Tower own the land and they have every right to do what they see fit with their property, within applicable zoning etc. Yes, of course they do. But there is still validity in discussion and questioning if this is right for the future of the city, especially around one of its most noted landmarks. In fact, I would argue that this is precisely the type of "NIMBY" dialogue that is so glaringly absent from Chicago in general these days - yielding rather disgusting results in neighborhoods citywide.

[forumly_chgoman]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

That's incorrect, only the total cost is lower, the marginal cost is actually much higher for smaller buildings. That's due to a thing called Economies of Scale which says that a producer can achieve a lower unit price when he is producing at progressively larger quantity. In other words, when you create things in bulk, the price of each unit is lower, think Costco or Sam's Club, you have to buy three gallons of Ketchup, but the price of each serving of Ketchup is much lower. That's a pretty basic economic principle.

Besides, its not the height of a building that makes it more expensive, its how wide it is. Tall average width buildings aren't all that more expensive than short average width buildings. Its when you make your building skinnier (think Trump, Waterview, Chicago Spire) that it gets more expensive. That's also why generally only luxury towers are built tall and skinny, because only their expensive unit prices can support tall and skinny.

^^^^can someone say straw man

[forumly_chgoman]

Originally Posted by honte

I am sorry, but it's highly inappropriate to call someone a NIMBY simply because they don't like something. I consider it a real insult. As far as I know, the Sears Tower is in no one's backyard, so there are no NIMBYs. There is a huge difference between people going out of their way to voice educated points of view on a subject that will affect the whole city, versus someone who is whining because they don't want to lose some personal convenience.

People on this board are voicing an opinion of what they believe is best for the city - architecture, urban design, history, scale, sense of place, whatever. I have to tell you, these are perfectly legitimate opinions, even if they don't happen to agree with your personal agenda. Let's have a little respect for people - we all might learn something.

Also, not to be a jerk, but your argument is weaker yet. You are essentially arguing that anyone can have carte blanche right to do whatever they feel like in the city, so long as there will be an increase in density and streetlife. Are these the values that drive all positive change in an urban environment - so much, that they should go unchecked. It should be perfectly obvious that this is an unacceptable situation.

At this point, someone will surely point out astutely that the owners of the Sears Tower own the land and they have every right to do what they see fit with their property, within applicable zoning etc. Yes, of course they do. But there is still validity in discussion and questioning if this is right for the future of the city, especially around one of its most noted landmarks. In fact, I would argue that this is precisely the type of "NIMBY" dialogue that is so glaringly absent from Chicago in general these days - yielding rather disgusting results in neighborhoods citywide.

Damn it jam it in..here is to 3 or 4 600-100 ft buildings w/in a block of Sears....

....roll the Strauss

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Huh?

This thinking makes absolutely no sense. First of all, tall buildings are expensive. Building shorter would increase the developers' discretionary funds to attempt things like underground parking, or a parking podium that's one story taller to allow ground-floor retail.

Since the developers' costs have lowered, they then pass along the savings to the buyer. Why on earth would unit prices go UP?

I disagree with WLCO's automatic reaction to height, though. WLCO needs to work closely with developers and push first for buildings that fill the lot, include retail, and meet the developer's desired number of units. Most of the time, that will result in a building that meets their height limitation anyway. If it's a bit over, they need to start being flexible. Last time I checked, there weren't too many developers pushing for really tall buildings in the West Loop. Skybridge is a notable one; there's also a 20-story proposal along Van Buren.

I dunno; I guess it's just my preference for buildings that fill their lots, like the ones in the Loop, or in New York. Thin buildings sitting on wide podiums seem ugly to me. Also, we have neighborhoods (South Loop, Streeterville, River North) which are still woefully incomplete in their high-rise development. I'd much rather have a complete mid-rise environment in West Loop and a complete high-rise environment in South Loop.

False, there have been multiple proposals for high-rises in West Loop Gate, you just do not hear much about them beacuse WLCO kills them.

-Emerald was originally planned as one tower before WLCO squished into two, even at 12 stories Eric says its still too tall, but they give it a pass.

-A 32 story building on the Carmine's Steakhouse property at Racine and Monroe. This one had a public park planned as a result of building taller and thinner. WLCO wants more green space, however by pushing buildings to shorter and to the lot lines they will not recieve any. They cried "too tall", "too tall". The developer came back with 19 stories, and it was still too tall, so its been canceled.

-A 20+ story tower on Jackson, currently a surface lot right behind the VB 1224 Loft building. Same concept, a taller thinner building with public green space. DOA.

-1035 W. Vanburen is battle they lost. The building's program is being changed to rental and the tower is getting a bit shorter and squatter, which of course WLCO loves.

1260 W. Madison, two 13 story buildings on a retail podium with some open space as well. The towers have been shortened, and don't quote me on this but I think some retail parking will now be provided in a stand alone surface lot. Of course, if they could easily go taller more units would offset the cost of larger parking garage.

There have been a couple others, but I don't know the details on how far along in concept the project was. Most developers don't even bother anymore, as this uphill batter for taller, denser structures always ends up as a waste of time and money. The result is ugly and cheap mid-rise buildings. Yes, the cost of the structure is cheaper, but the land is still expensive which is why the sale price of the units is comprable to units elsware in downtown. They take longer to sell here because there is ghost town outside the front door, and few to no amenities inside the smaller buildings. Where as, a simmilar price can buy them a same unit in a more vibrant part of downtown, and in a better building.

I saw a figure not to long ago that stated that land for sale in the West Loop is the second highest per square foot on average in the downtown area. Granted, that probably includes everything west of the river which would raise the average, but my point is market conditions due exist for larger buildings.

Furthermore, everyone is bitching about how the CTA has its budget issues, well then what the hell is Chicago doing to pack more riders into under utilized trains and buses to increase CTA's farebox revenue? Here is an area with bus lines on nearly every east-west street, and three rapid transit lines all with ample capacity for more riders. Most cities would kill to even have that level of service, and here it is being wasted. IMO, the new station at Lake and Morgan should NOT be built untill the neighborhood is more willing to accept higher density, otherwise this is a wastefull expenditure when the rest of the system needs more capitol funds.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Chicago2020

So whats going with this project????

Awesome! I am glad to see massing renderings are now comming along. Acording to the PD Application the subareas along the slip have an FAR of 9.0. That can spawn some decent size towers. I am very happy to towrers in the massing, that hopefully means there will be a fairly open eneded scheame with alot of flexibilty on the overall build out. Much like how Lake Shore East and Central Station had thier designs improve as the projects proved to be successful. The density is fantastic at 17,727 units, with alot of public open space included in the plan.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

^^^^can someone say straw man

How is that a straw man? It completely legitimate to correct the flawed reasoning that "smaller buildings cost less, therefore the developers have more money to build things like underground parking."

[Marcu]

The whole West Loop Gate thing is just common sense. Shorter buildings = less output (# of units) = less supply = higher prices per units.

[ardecila]

Hmm.... I didn't suggest that the developers lower their unit counts, only that they fill the lot lines first and see where that gets them height-wise. If it does put them above the height limit, that's okay... but you don't end up with random little bits of greenspace and parking everywhere, and ridiculous setbacks above the parking floors, which seem to be where the West Loop is headed.

I'm all for as much density as possible, but let's stop equating height with density and figure out a way to do high-density between 8 and 15 stories. Paris and other European cities manage to do it (albeit with smaller square footage per unit).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

1260 W. Madison, two 13 story buildings on a retail podium with some open space as well. The towers have been shortened, and don't quote me on this but I think some retail parking will now be provided in a stand alone surface lot. Of course, if they could easily go taller more units would offset the cost of larger parking garage.

^ A stand along parking lot? Now that's a good use of space

Please tell me the parking lot won't be between the shops and the sidewalk! That would ruin my day.

Back when I used to visit YoChicago (before the ass who runs it got under my skin) they had posted a large YouTube discussion between a south loop and a west loop developer. The west loop developer discussed the west loop's retail scene as evolving into a more 'boutique, small-scale' retail scene, and almost made it sound like that was intentional.

What I figured was that this developer was simply admitting defeat but trying to paint it in a positive fashion. If he didn't want to build highrises, then why did he build 740 Fulton? WLCO bitch-slapped him into submission.

We need more people like the Hyde Park Blogger in other neighborhoods, like the west loop! Where's our WestLoopBlogger?

Nevertheless, Shawn, I still think too many vacant lots is definitely contributing to the dead sidewalk scene in the West Loop; fill those in and then we'll see. But if WLCO blocks the Sundance Cinemas project, I might actually vomit in disgust. The city should NOT lose out on such an opportunity.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm all for as much density as possible, but let's stop equating height with density and figure out a way to do high-density between 8 and 15 stories. Paris and other European cities manage to do it (albeit with smaller square footage per unit).

Yeah. They are able to do it. And a price of a studio in a European city is how much?

[harryc]

Oct 14